HB 1 defines term, “social media.” Sponsors advocate to “serve a compelling state interest to keep our children safe.” Senator, Erin Grall (R-Indian River, Highlands, Okeechobee) filed companion bill.
Allowing “inspiring” young entrepreneurs as an exception can open the door to more human trafficking. If you want to start an internet business and are under age, then it should get reviewed by the FCC or the like.
Most entrepreneurs who are minors are going to have to be of age for the sake of contracts. Especially on YouTube, where it is required. It comes back to parental control. The trafficking aspect is a criminal aspect that gets addressed in existing law and HB 3. It's a tough call because the state moves into a parental role. We cannot assume all users are traffickers, or there are no traffickers on the web. The FCC cannot regulate on that level because social media companies are not public utilities or going across airwaves on limited bandwidth like radio and television.
Allowing “inspiring” young entrepreneurs as an exception can open the door to more human trafficking. If you want to start an internet business and are under age, then it should get reviewed by the FCC or the like.
Most entrepreneurs who are minors are going to have to be of age for the sake of contracts. Especially on YouTube, where it is required. It comes back to parental control. The trafficking aspect is a criminal aspect that gets addressed in existing law and HB 3. It's a tough call because the state moves into a parental role. We cannot assume all users are traffickers, or there are no traffickers on the web. The FCC cannot regulate on that level because social media companies are not public utilities or going across airwaves on limited bandwidth like radio and television.
Hard call.
Hmm. Interesting. I didn’t know the FCC had those kind of limitations